Paying a homeless person to eat dog poop

[slickpoppa]

In the politics forum someone mentioned that the guy who made Supersize This used to pay homeless people $100 to eat dog poop and videotape it. Do you think that this is immoral?

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

It's definitely not to be looked well upon, but it's pure capitalism.

[steelcmg]

Where does one find these videos?

[chaas4747]

Yes, and degrading. I used to hang out in this bar that' regular population was like 90% Hispanic. They used to bring in the video of this thing called "bum fight" that was some guys paying homeless people in Mexico $50 each to beat the [censored] out of each other. It was interesting at the time, but now that I look back on it, it was terribly wrong.

[chaas4747]

This response bothers me more than the video.

[Dangergirl]

This reminds me does anyone remember that guy who got in trouble for paying homeless people to fight? He would videotape them and sell the videos. He sold a crapload but got busted.

[IndieMatty]

[ QUOTE ]
This reminds me does anyone remember that guy who got in trouble for paying homeless people to fight? He would videotape them and sell the videos. He sold a crapload but got busted.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes bumfights? I think you can still DL on limewire

[theghost]

[ QUOTE ]
It's definitely not to be looked well upon, but it's pure capitalism.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you suggesting that "pure capitalism" excuses immorality?

[chaas4747]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This reminds me does anyone remember that guy who got in trouble for paying homeless people to fight? He would videotape them and sell the videos. He sold a crapload but got busted.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes bumfights? I think you can still DL on limewire

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I know who's ignore list I am on!

[steelcmg]

Not that i would get a thrill out of watching it but still would be nice to know just something came up where i really needed to gross peopel out.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

Are you suggesting that "pure capitalism" excuses immorality?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd imagine that what he was saying was that it was a voluntary exchange of cash for services. The services rendered aren't by themselves inherently immoral, unless you have strong feelings about the sentience of dog poop. One can debate whether it was truly a voluntary exchange, perhaps, but I think that if you accept that it was then it's hard to find too much immoral about it. It's definitely distasteful, though - literally! Wocka wocka wocka.

[Freakin]

Bob Rivers this morning was talking about a homeless guy who had a sign saying "punch me in the face for $5, kick my ass for $20". These are no different from prostitution in my book. In Thailand, it is not uncommon for people to cut parts of their children's bodies off to make them look more unfortunate as beggars. So if you see the poor little kid with one arm, you're more likely to give him money.

This is not fixing any sort of problem, it is abusing someone who cannot afford to refuse because he lacks the proper support system. How is this any different from prostitution (obviously I know it's different in a few ways)?

Freakin

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's definitely not to be looked well upon, but it's pure capitalism.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you suggesting that "pure capitalism" excuses immorality?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't view it as immoral.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
How is this any different from prostitution (obviously I know it's different in a few ways)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not much at all, but this assumes that people find prostitution immoral.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's definitely not to be looked well upon, but it's pure capitalism.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you suggesting that "pure capitalism" excuses immorality?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. I am saying, however, that there is a point where these bums are willing to do this. It happens to be $100. That's the market. For you or me, it might be $1000 or $1M or $10M or maybe it can't be bought from you or me. The bums are setting the market rate and they're doing it (I assume) by their own free will. If they're willing to do it, then they are allowed to make that decision for themselves. Everyone's an adult here, right?

Now, do I think the person paying these guys to eat dog poop is a completely dirty, rotten [censored]? Of course. It also happens that I think much the same of many business people.

[IndieMatty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This reminds me does anyone remember that guy who got in trouble for paying homeless people to fight? He would videotape them and sell the videos. He sold a crapload but got busted.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes bumfights? I think you can still DL on limewire

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I know who's ignore list I am on!

[/ QUOTE ]

haha. no I just read from the bottom up. I congratulated you on your impending father hood dude!


I don't ignore anyone.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How is this any different from prostitution (obviously I know it's different in a few ways)?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not much at all, but this assumes that people find prostitution immoral.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't find either of these immoral.

[jaym]

[ QUOTE ]
They used to bring in the video of this thing called "bum fight" that was some guys paying homeless people in Mexico $50 each to beat the [censored] out of each other.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think Rufus the StuntBum was Hispanic.

[Boris]

yes. it is immoral according my code of ethics. But I don't believe in God either so take my opinion for what it's worth.

[Stuck]

[ QUOTE ]
In Thailand, it is not uncommon for people to cut parts of their children's bodies off to make them look more unfortunate as beggars. So if you see the poor little kid with one arm, you're more likely to give him money.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is completely different. The child isn't acting voluntarily.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In Thailand, it is not uncommon for people to cut parts of their children's bodies off to make them look more unfortunate as beggars. So if you see the poor little kid with one arm, you're more likely to give him money.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is completely different. The child isn't acting voluntarily.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do these kids eat poop? If they do, I'll give them money.

[CallMeIshmael]

Anyone who can't see why this is clearly wrong is retarded.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who can't see why this is clearly wrong is retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is it wrong?

[The Ocho]

[ QUOTE ]
Bob Rivers this morning was talking about a homeless guy who had a sign saying "punch me in the face for $5, kick my ass for $20". These are no different from prostitution in my book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kicking a willing bum's ass isn't dangerous to society as a whole. Unlike the sex trade, it isn't going to foster the spread of disease and crime. Prostitution has larger consequences than just a bum with five bucks and a broken nose.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who can't see why this is clearly wrong is retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]
How much different is this than a guy daring or betting a friend to eat some gross stuff - mix up some raw eggs and peanut butter and some tomato juice and a cup of mayonaise? The dog poop is worse, but then again, the price/reward is higher too.

I'm not saying I'm a fan of this guy. I'm just saying I'm not going to fight against his right to do it. I would ask that he not do it because I find it incredibly distasteful, but I wouldn't fight against it.

[maryfield48]

[ QUOTE ]
The services rendered aren't by themselves inherently immoral, unless you have strong feelings about the sentience of dog poop.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean, it's immoral if dog poop is a thinking, conscious being? So eating it would then be murder? I guess I can go along with that position.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying I'm a fan of this guy. I'm just saying I'm not going to fight against his right to do it. I would ask that he not do it because I find it incredibly distasteful, but I wouldn't fight against it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to mention you're restricting the bum's right to make a buck.

[Crveballin]

How is this any different from the crap people do on Fear Factor?? At first I thought it was immoral but then thinking upon it, hey they guy probably needs the money more than the people on Fear Factor.

Its not like he forced the homeless man to eat it. He offered a proposition.

[utmt40]

This thread is terrible. LMAO

[VBM]

[ QUOTE ]
the guy who made Supersize This

[/ QUOTE ]

is anyone else unimpressed w/ this guy? i think there are problems with this "documentary":

1. you can get salads at McDonalds; even in the time frame he was making this. he just chose not to get them.
2. was doing this stunt refuting any stated claim that eating fast food every day was fine?
3. the spirit in which he did this experiment was clearly guided towards an expose piece from the beginning.

as for the dog-poop thing; i don't know if its immoral or not, but for me it does reinforce the fact that this guy relies on sensationalism and stupid human tricks rather than any true film-making talent.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
is anyone else unimpressed w/ this guy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. The whole thing was just stupid. Was there someone, somewhere that actually believed that eating McDonalds crap six times a day would be good for you? How enlightening this was. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
How is it wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are basically saying:

- I have $100 that I have no need for.
- I see a homeless person who is in need of food/shelter
- I could be a decent human, and use part of that money (for which I have no need remmeber), and bring him some food or something
- No. I will completely degrade him. Remind him how much better I am than him. And borderline torture another human, who desperately needs the $100 for survival.


Next up: flying to Ethiopia, and eating large buffets in front of starving children.


Again: anyone who doesnt see why this is wrong, is retarded.

[OtisTheMarsupial]

Not only immoral, also illegal in most places.
Dog poop is a hazardous waste.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
- I have $100 that I have no need for.
- I see a homeless person who is in need of food/shelter
- I could be a decent human, and use part of that money (for which I have no need remmeber), and bring him some food or something
- No. I will completley degrade him. Remind him how much better I am than him. And borderline torture another human, who desperately needs the $100 for survival.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. I have no obligation to give away money. It's mine to do with what I want. Using it as I please is not wrong.
2. I'm not degrading him. He's degrading himself. I'm not torturing him. If it is torture, then he's doing it to himself. I offered him a simple yes or no proposition. It's no different than half the prop bets people post here.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

- No. I will completley degrade him. Remind him how much better I am than him. And borderline torture another human, who desperately needs the $100 for survival.

[/ QUOTE ]

And then give him $100.

While it is distasteful and I would have a low opinion of anybody who did such a thing - is anybody really arguing that? - I'm still not sold that it is immoral.

Is it immoral when you take $100 that you don't need and use it for your own entertainment instead of giving it to some bum? Couldn't one argue that it is even MORE immoral?

[swede123]

I have to say that it is immoral. If you have the choice between doing a homeless person a favor and giving him $100 OR you wanted him to perform a disgusting stunt for the money, how could you possibly classify the guy demanding a stunt as a moral person? Getting some sort of amusement (or monetary reward, by selling the video tapes) out of watching a dude (homelss or otherwise) eat [censored] is pretty messed up, and demanding that the bum would eat it before you'd give him the cash clearly is the sign of a piece of [censored] individual. So I'll have to call this immoral.

Swede

[OtisTheMarsupial]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

the guy who made Supersize This

[/ QUOTE ]
is anyone else unimpressed w/ this guy? i think there are problems with this "documentary":

[/ QUOTE ]

First, Supersize This is not the movie you're talking about. You are talking about Supersize Me.

Second, we have no proof this guy actually paid homeless people to eat dog poop, this is called a "rumor."

arg... if you want to talk about the movie, start a new thread or pick up the one from a few months ago.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
2. I'm not degrading him. He's degrading himself. I'm not torturing him. If it is torture, then he's doing it to himself. I offered him a simple yes or no proposition. It's no different than half the prop bets people post here.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are showing a complete inability to see the world though someone else's eyes.

$100 represents so much to a homeless person, that he/she is forced to endure this pain because of what the $100 brings.

[Lame Amateur]

[ QUOTE ]
You are showing a complete inability to see the world though someone else's eyes.

[/ QUOTE ]


He's American. What else do you expect?

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
You are showing a complete inability to see the world though someone else's eyes. $100 represents so much to a homeless person, that he/she is forced to endure this pain because of what the $100 brings.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no moral obligation to see through his eyes. I don't want to see through his eyes. I also have no moral obligation to give him anything. Do I give to charity? Yes. Do I think anyone that would do this is pretty [censored] up? Yes. But is it immoral? Not in my opinion.

[OtisTheMarsupial]

[ QUOTE ]
While it is distasteful and I would have a low opinion of anybody who did such a thing - is anybody really arguing that? - I'm still not sold that it is immoral.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you guys really not understand that eating dog poop is hazardous to your health? It's filled with bacteria... Have you hear of e coli?

Paying someone to eat dog poop is akin to paying someone to eat poison.

Damn straight it's immoral.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
I have to say that it is immoral. If you have the choice between doing a homeless person a favor and giving him $100 OR you wanted him to perform a disgusting stunt for the money, how could you possibly classify the guy demanding a stunt as a moral person? Getting some sort of amusement (or monetary reward, by selling the video tapes) out of watching a dude (homelss or otherwise) eat [censored] is pretty messed up, and demanding that the bum would eat it before you'd give him the cash clearly is the sign of a piece of [censored] individual. So I'll have to call this immoral. Swede

[/ QUOTE ]

I largely agree except that being a piece of [censored] individual doesn't make you immoral. I'm not agreeing it's a nice thing to do, or that the person that would seek this form of entertainment isn't pretty [censored] up. However, I don't believe it's immoral.

[cbfair]

[ QUOTE ]
In the politics forum someone mentioned that the guy who made Supersize This used to pay homeless people $100 to eat dog poop and videotape it. Do you think that this is immoral?

[/ QUOTE ]

Personaly, I'd say its immoral; But so is slander... Regardless of anyone's opinions of Supersize Me, has it been substantiated that Morgan Spurlock actually did this?

[DMBFan23]

[ QUOTE ]
Do I think anyone that would do this is pretty [censored] up? Yes. But is it immoral? Not in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to assume, but are you confusing immoral and illegal?

[swede123]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are showing a complete inability to see the world though someone else's eyes. $100 represents so much to a homeless person, that he/she is forced to endure this pain because of what the $100 brings.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no moral obligation to see through his eyes. I don't want to see through his eyes. I also have no moral obligation to give him anything. Do I give to charity? Yes. Do I think anyone that would do this is pretty [censored] up? Yes. But is it immoral? Not in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jake man. It's the difference between giving the money freely and demanding something in return (whether it be amusement or monetary gain) that makes this an immoral act.

Here are the applicable definitions of moral:

Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.

Clearly it is not the sign of a good or virtuous person to demand that a fellow person do something disgusting before offering his help to him. A good, moral person who intended on giving someone $100 would do it with no strings attached or at least in return for something that wasn't so clearly demeaning or humiliating.

Swede

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

Paying someone to eat dog poop is akin to paying someone to eat poison.

[/ QUOTE ]

Presumably the person your paying knows this as well. They are agreeing to it. Again, it's a legitimate point to debate whether the need for $100 makes it so this isn't truly voluntary, but few people are taking that tack.

Here's a similarly structured argument: Being a fireman is dangerous. Paying people to fight fires is like paying people to risk serious bodily harm. Damn straight it's immoral.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

Clearly it is not the sign of a good or virtuous person to demand that a fellow person do something disgusting before offering his help to him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is saying this guy is good or virtuous?

And, I'll pose this question again. Which is more immoral: to give a bum $100 if he'll willingly eat dog poop, or to pass the bum on the street, give him nothing, and go spend $100 on a nice meal for you and your lady friend?

[swede123]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Clearly it is not the sign of a good or virtuous person to demand that a fellow person do something disgusting before offering his help to him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is saying this guy is good or virtuous?

And, I'll pose this question again. Which is more immoral: to give a bum $100 if he'll willingly eat dog poop, or to pass the bum on the street, give him nothing, and go spend $100 on a nice meal for you and your lady friend?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the person who demanded a bum eat some dog crap in exchange for $100 is less moral than someone who just goes on their way and spends the $100 on something else.

Obviously a person who gave $100 with no strings attached would be more moral (in my eyes) than someone who ended up spending it on something extravagant for himself.

Swede

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
Jake man. It's the difference between giving the money freely and demanding something in return (whether it be amusement or monetary gain) that makes this an immoral act.

Here are the applicable definitions of moral:

Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.

Clearly it is not the sign of a good or virtuous person to demand that a fellow person do something disgusting before offering his help to him. A good, moral person who intended on giving someone $100 would do it with no strings attached or at least in return for something that wasn't so clearly demeaning or humiliating. Swede

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. His purpose here isn't to give the guy $100. This person obviously wants to see them guy eat poop. The $100 is his. He has a right to use it for whatever he wants. When I go to the store, I don't think I'd really like to give this guy $5.60 and it would be wrong to ask for a sixer in exchange. Yes, I agree he's a raving sicko. But I don't think he's performing an act that's morally wrong. If the bum finds it demeaning or degrading, and he has a problem with degrading himself, then he shouldn't do it. That's his right.

[spamuell]

If the bum finds it demeaning or degrading, and he has a problem with degrading himself, then he shouldn't do it. That's his right.

Jake, this is the issue that people who say it's immoral have, that while the bum may have the right to refuse to do the act, he does not have the choice because he needs the $100 so much.

It's like dangling someone over a vat of lava and saying that if they eat dog poop you will rescue them but otherwise they will shortly fall to their death. You could say that if they don't wish to eat the poop that's their right, but actually they have no effective choice.

I think what's immoral is that society allows someone to be in that situation in the first place, once people have the freedom to eat, have shelter and have relative safety from being beaten up, offers like this cease to be immoral because choice actually exists.

[Jules22]

i think the supersize this guy is a self righteous @$$hole

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
If the bum finds it demeaning or degrading, and he has a problem with degrading himself, then he shouldn't do it. That's his right.

Jake, this is the issue that people who say it's immoral have, that while the bum may have the right to refuse to do the act, he does not have the choice because he needs the $100 so much.

It's like dangling someone over a vat of lava and saying that if they eat dog poop you will rescue them but otherwise they will shortly fall to their death. You could say that if they don't wish to eat the poop that's their right, but actually they have no effective choice.

I think what's immoral is that society allows someone to be in that situation in the first place, once people have the freedom to eat, have shelter and have relative safety from being beaten up, offers like this cease to be immoral because choice actually exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with pretty much everything you sdaid here. I think people always have a choice. I think that the vast majority of bums are bums because of other choices they've made. I don't think "society" has a responsibility to feed, clothe, or provide medical care for anyone. Not only that, I bvelive the truly immoral ones are the people that would deprive me of the right to spend my $100 as I choose, and deprive the bum of the right to earn the $100 if he chooses. These are the same people that would steal what is mine to give it to people that haven't earned it in the name of society's responsibility. I don't want to turn this into a political debate so feel free to end it here or respond once as you see fit. I'm not going to argue that anymore.

[theghost]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. I'm not degrading him. He's degrading himself. I'm not torturing him. If it is torture, then he's doing it to himself. I offered him a simple yes or no proposition. It's no different than half the prop bets people post here.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are showing a complete inability to see the world though someone else's eyes.

$100 represents so much to a homeless person, that he/she is forced to endure this pain because of what the $100 brings.

[/ QUOTE ]

especially when the bum could use the $100 to whore planetluck/starluck and parlay it into ~$300 /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
If the bum finds it demeaning or degrading, and he has a problem with degrading himself, then he shouldn't do it. That's his right.

Jake, this is the issue that people who say it's immoral have, that while the bum may have the right to refuse to do the act, he does not have the choice because he needs the $100 so much.

It's like dangling someone over a vat of lava and saying that if they eat dog poop you will rescue them but otherwise they will shortly fall to their death. You could say that if they don't wish to eat the poop that's their right, but actually they have no effective choice.



[/ QUOTE ]

The lava thing is a horrible analogy. The bum was not put in this siutation by the supersize me guy. He is not responsible for his situation in the least.

I personally don't find it wrong at all. In this exchange, no one suffers, and everyone benefits.

My physics teacher used to tell me stories about some bars that used to feature Midget Tossing. The midgets were paid employees of the bar. They would wear safety gear with handles, and people would have contests to see how far they could throw the midgets (onto a mat of course). Eventually, some uptight people protested this practice, and the government made it illegal. Afterward, many of these previously middle class midgets found themselves without jobs, and seeing this practice go literally ruined their lives.

I think that is a MUCH better analogy than your lava BS.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
My physics teacher used to tell me stories about some bars that used to feature Midget Tossing. The midgets were paid employees of the bar. They would wear safety gear with handles, and people would have contests to see how far they could throw the midgets (onto a mat of course). Eventually, some uptight people protested this practice, and the government made it illegal. Afterward, many of these previously middle class midgets found themselves without jobs, and seeing this practice go literally ruined their lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder where one could still do this? Surely there is a third world country somewhere? I wonder how far I could throw a midget? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Lame Amateur]

[ QUOTE ]
In this exchange, no one suffers

[/ QUOTE ]

100% chance of you being retarded.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's definitely not to be looked well upon, but it's pure capitalism.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you suggesting that "pure capitalism" excuses immorality?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. I am saying, however, that there is a point where these bums are willing to do this. It happens to be $100. That's the market. For you or me, it might be $1000 or $1M or $10M or maybe it can't be bought from you or me. The bums are setting the market rate and they're doing it (I assume) by their own free will. If they're willing to do it, then they are allowed to make that decision for themselves. Everyone's an adult here, right?

Now, do I think the person paying these guys to eat dog poop is a completely dirty, rotten [censored]? Of course. It also happens that I think much the same of many business people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but considering the source of it, Mr. McDonalds-is-irresponsible-in-its-craven-drive-for-profits himself, it's more than a bit hypocritical. This is the point, not really the dog-poop eating bum, Although the fact that it could easily get him violently ill and posibly permanently so shpuld have crossed the producers mind, also.

[OtisTheMarsupial]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a similarly structured argument: Being a fire-fighter is dangerous. Paying people to fight fires is like paying people to risk serious bodily harm.

[/ QUOTE ] FYP

No, not a good analogy.

Factors to consider:

Fire-fighters serve the community by protecting their safety; poop eaters either do not serve the community or do so as entertainment only

Fire-fighters have protective equipment and are not expected to risk their lives to stop a fire (dead rescuers are not as effective as live rescuers); poop eaters risk the bacterial infection without protective equipment.

Moreover, poop eaters who become sick from eating poop will likely receive government-subsidized health care or death services, thus placing a burden on society.

It's immoral, illegal, bad idea, not good capitalism and it's not even close.

[teamdonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you guys really not understand that eating dog poop is hazardous to your health? It's filled with bacteria... Have you hear of e coli?

Paying someone to eat dog poop is akin to paying someone to eat poison.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poop comes from the digestive tract. Putting it back into your digestive tract (eating it) probably isn't the same as poisoning yourself. You already have bacteria in your gut, it helps you digest your food.

I can't believe i just called [censored] poop.

[brassnuts]

Short answer: Yes. It is immoral to take advantage of someone.

[spamuell]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It's like dangling someone over a vat of lava and saying that if they eat dog poop you will rescue them but otherwise they will shortly fall to their death. You could say that if they don't wish to eat the poop that's their right, but actually they have no effective choice.



[/ QUOTE ]

The lava thing is a horrible analogy. The bum was not put in this siutation by the supersize me guy. He is not responsible for his situation in the least.


[/ QUOTE ]

It is entirely irrelevant whether or not the supersize me guy is responsible for the bum's situation, or whether the person offering to save someone from falling into lava in return for them eating dog poop is responsible for that situation.

Take the person offering to save someone from falling into lava. Say they were walking along near a volcano and happened to come across someone being dangled over the lava and then offered them the same deal that they'd only prevent them falling to their death if they ate dog poop. Would it be ok?

Responsibility for the situation that the person is in is not the issue here. What is wrong is taking advantage of someone's lack of choice, regardless of whether you put them in that situation.

[Jakesta]

Jake and spammuell both make good points in this thread.

Here are the main points:

1) There is nothing immoral about paying someone $100 to eat poop. Is it disgusting? Sure it is. But a homeless person needs the $100 bucks and making this practice illegal would hurt their livelihood.

2) We have to examine the reasons behind homelessness. People shouldn't ever have to be homeless and forced to eat feces.

[dr. klopek]

This particular act is immoral, IMO. It is akin to hiring illegal immigrants because you don't have to pay them minimum wage.

The guy doesn't just want to see someone eat [censored]. He wants the homeless guy to do it. He wouldn't go up to his mother and ask her to eat [censored] on camera for $50k. Or whatever a reasonable amount would be. He clearly doesn't value the homeless person as much as a non-homeless person. The reason that he made the proposition that he made to the person that he made it to is predatory.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
This particular act is immoral, IMO. It is akin to hiring illegal immigrants because you don't have to pay them minimum wage.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only thing immoral about this is the existence of a minimum wage in the first place.

[dr. klopek]

[ QUOTE ]
The only thing immoral about this is the existence of a minimum wage in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

ugh

[rmarotti]

Nobody has yet even said what they mean by "immoral." I think that might be part of the problem.

[wrto4556]

I think this can be compared to "sweat camps". They have a choice to take the job or not take it, but are put in a situation where they need/have to take the job.

Surely, you would consider sweat camps or child labor immoral?

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Surely, you would consider sweat camps or child labor immoral?

[/ QUOTE ]

Dont assume too much

[wrto4556]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Surely, you would consider sweat camps or child labor immoral?

[/ QUOTE ]

Dont assume too much

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats a little harsh. Eating dog poop isnt as big of a deal, but it's still immoral.

[sthief09]

I think it's immoral only because the price is so low. he's taking advantage of their desparation for money. if he offered them $10,000, or some fair market price for middle class people, that would be different.

I view this as similar to prostitution though slightly different because he's paying such a low price for doing that

[OtisTheMarsupial]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you guys really not understand that eating dog poop is hazardous to your health? It's filled with bacteria... Have you hear of e coli?

Paying someone to eat dog poop is akin to paying someone to eat poison.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poop comes from the digestive tract. Putting it back into your digestive tract (eating it) probably isn't the same as poisoning yourself. You already have bacteria in your gut, it helps you digest your food.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.
First, this is dog poop, not human poop.
Second, poop is exactly where e coli comes from.
Poop is the reason we wash and/or thoroughly cook our food before we eat it.

[bones]

[ QUOTE ]
The only thing immoral about this is the existence of a minimum wage in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Worthless post. You have zero understanding of the dangers of unbridled capitalism.

Forcing a homeless person to eat crap for money is akin to telling a mother to eat crap to save her child's life. Homeless people are literally starving to death. You're taking advantage of this to amuse yourself, while putting their health in danger. If this doesn't strike you as immoral, I can't imagine what does.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The only thing immoral about this is the existence of a minimum wage in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Worthless post. You have zero understanding of the dangers of unbridled capitalism.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have zero understanding of what freedom is about.

[hoopsie44]

That guy seemed like the biggest pussy in the world in that movie. I think the homeless would kick his ass if he tried this stunt.

[jakethebake]

there's lots of homeless people arpound my work. maybe i'll try this over the weekend just to piss people off. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

<font color="white"> yes. i'm kidding. </font>

[teamdonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
No.
First, this is dog poop, not human poop.
Second, poop is exactly where e coli comes from.
Poop is the reason we wash and/or thoroughly cook our food before we eat it.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, Mammalian digestive tracts really aren't that different, nor are the bacteria living in them. My dog when she was a puppy used to eat her [censored], horses [censored], pretty much any [censored] she could find. Hasn't fallen over dead yet.
Second, you have a horde of e coli living in your digestive tract right now, and yet somehow you're still healthy.
The main (health) reason for cooking food thoroughly is indeed to kill bacteria, but not from fear of deadly digestive tract borne pathogens. Eating [censored] is disgusting and has poor nutritional value, but isn't going to kill you and definately isn't the same as eating poison as you've suggested.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
First, Mammalian digestive tracts really aren't that different

[/ QUOTE ]

I stopped right there.

[tripdad]

[ QUOTE ]
Not that i would get a thrill out of watching it but still would be nice to know just something came up where i really needed to gross peopel out.

[/ QUOTE ]

you could probably accomplish that by opening a can of wipe-ass on them.

cheers!

[stankybank]

no. it's not like he's forcing it. if the bum wants a c-note by eating poop while being recorded, so be it. who cares? I mean, who REALLY cares?

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
First, Mammalian digestive tracts really aren't that different, nor are the bacteria living in them. My dog when she was a puppy used to eat her [censored], horses [censored], pretty much any [censored] she could find. Hasn't fallen over dead yet.
Second, you have a horde of e coli living in your digestive tract right now, and yet somehow you're still healthy.
The main (health) reason for cooking food thoroughly is indeed to kill bacteria, but not from fear of deadly digestive tract borne pathogens. Eating [censored] is disgusting and has poor nutritional value, but isn't going to kill you and definately isn't the same as eating poison as you've suggested.

[/ QUOTE ]

2 things:

Mammals include things like: bats, cows, dolphins, chimps, kangaroos, bears and anteaters.

Some eat plants. Some eat other animals. Some eat both. Some eat insects.

The digestive tracks of all of these are VERY different.

For example, cows have 4 stomachs.


2. You can't assume that, just because your dog didnt die from eating its feces, that it isnt a poison to humans.

I mean... chocolate is poisonous to dogs. Is it to humans?


(fwiw, I dont know if feces is just disgusting, or actually a poison to humans. I am guessing the latter)

[crookedhat99]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's immoral only because the price is so low. he's taking advantage of their desparation for money. if he offered them $10,000, or some fair market price for middle class people, that would be different.

[/ QUOTE ]


Is it immoral to buy clothes from a store having a sale?

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's immoral only because the price is so low. he's taking advantage of their desparation for money. if he offered them $10,000, or some fair market price for middle class people, that would be different.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see what you're saying. But, no matter how much money you pay a homeless guy, you are, essentially, dangling survival in his face.

A middle class person can turn down 10k (or whatever) and still be reasonaly certain they wont starve to death. While, the same cant be said of a homeless person.

[Jules22]

please. nobody needs 100 dollars that bad. if theyre really starving they could go hang around taco bell, im sure a nun will buy them a taco or something.

[LargeCents]

[ QUOTE ]
I see what you're saying. But, no matter how much money you pay a homeless guy, you are, essentially, dangling survival in his face.


[/ QUOTE ]

This situation is hard to imagine, because $100 isn't life and death like so many of you guys are trying to say. It's a nice chunk of change for a homeless person, but they aren't going to die or suffer some unimaginable hardship if they don't get it.

More accurate might be to embody what the $100 actually represents. Dangle a fifth of vodka or a heroin needle in front of a bum who is a bum because of an inescapable addiction. This is where you are starting to see the morality more clearly. In this example it is much more clear that you are preying on a physical weakness, addiction.


P.S. If anyone wants to offer me $10M to eat the most diseased dog [censored] you can find, I'll take it. How long do I have to hold it down? Can I take any performance enhancing drugs such as a gag reflex inhibitor? lol

P.S.S. I used to work in a liquor store, which would have some pretty nasty bums come in sometimes. One night a bum was trying to offer his services as a gay prostitute in exchange for alcohal, but it was clear that he was not gay. I imagine that he had made this type of arrangement in the past. Very sad.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
nobody needs 100 dollars that bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

This thread just keeps getting more retarded.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
a bum who is a bum because of an inescapable addiction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any proof to back up such a bold statement?

[-Skeme-]

[ QUOTE ]
1. you can get salads at McDonalds; even in the time frame he was making this. he just chose not to get them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Big Mac: 560 calories
Bacon Ranch Salad w/ Crispy Chicken &amp; Ranch Dressing: 540 calories

[Ed Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
First, Mammalian digestive tracts really aren't that different, nor are the bacteria living in them. My dog when she was a puppy used to eat her [censored], horses [censored], pretty much any [censored] she could find. Hasn't fallen over dead yet.
Second, you have a horde of e coli living in your digestive tract right now, and yet somehow you're still healthy.
The main (health) reason for cooking food thoroughly is indeed to kill bacteria, but not from fear of deadly digestive tract borne pathogens. Eating [censored] is disgusting and has poor nutritional value, but isn't going to kill you and definately isn't the same as eating poison as you've suggested.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll forgive your ignorance by assuming you aren't old enough to remember the Jack in the Box (http://www.about-ecoli.com/news/jack-in-the-box.htm) fiasco.

Specifically (from about-ecoli.com (http://www.about-ecoli.com/)):

[ QUOTE ]
Meat typically becomes contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 during the slaughtering process, when the contents of the animal's intestine and feces are allowed to come into contact with the carcass. Unless the carcass is sanitized somehow, the E. coli bacteria are eventually mixed into the meat, as it is ground into hamburger. Because the bacteria is mixed into the meat during the grinding process, and not just on the surface, thorough cooking (greater than 160 degrees) is required to prevent E. coli O157:H7 poisoning when the ground beef is eaten by the consumer.

[/ QUOTE ]

[KaneKungFu123]

why would you want to watch this?

[hoopsie44]

[ QUOTE ]
I mean, who REALLY cares?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who REALLY cares about any of the mind boggling minutae that is discussed in this forum.

[teamdonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll forgive your ignorance by assuming you were in high school and smoking too much pot to care about the Jack in the Box fiasco.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP.

also from that site:

"Although E. coli has been often in the news as a foodborne pathogen, the vast majority of E. coli strains are harmless"

"E. coli O157:H7 bacteria is believed to mostly live in the intestines of cattle, but has also been found in the intestines of chickens, deer, sheep, and pigs."

Obviously then paying a homeless person to eat [censored] from cows, chickens, deer, sheep or pigs is immoral, but as dog [censored] isn't a known source of E. coli O157:H7 this should be considered gainful employment and you should have him fill out a W-2 first.